보건행정학회지 (Health Policy and Management)

  • 제23권4호
  • /
  • Pages.434-444
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 1225-4266(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2289-0149(eISSN)
한국보건행정학회 (Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

권역심뇌혈관질환센터의 공익성 측정도구 개발

Development and Validation of the Measurement Tool of Public Benefits in Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Center

  • 이건세 (건국대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 신은영 (한양여자대학교 보건행정과) ;
  • 정효선 (건국대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 이정현 (서울대학교병원 대외정책팀) ;
  • 김희숙 (질병관리본부 만성질환관리과) ;
  • 임영실 (질병관리본부 만성질환관리과) ;
  • 김영택Kun (질병관리본부 감염병관리과)
  • Lee, Kunsei (Department of Preventive Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Shin, Eunyoung (Department of Public Health Administration, Hanyang Women's University) ;
  • Jeong, Hyoseon (Department of Preventive Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jung-Hyun (Office of Policy and Development, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Sook (Divisions of Chronic Disease Control, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) ;
  • Lim, Young Sil (Divisions of Chronic Disease Control, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) ;
  • Kim, Young Taek (Divisions of Infectious Disease Control, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
  • 투고 : 2013.09.04
  • 심사 : 2013.11.27
  • 발행 : 2013.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Centers (RCC) were established for the prevention and treatment of cardiocerebrovascular disease and funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the measurement tool of public benefits in RCC. Methods: Through the intensive literature review, experts surveys and their repetitive feedback, we selected the 46 items about the public benefits in RCC. Development of measurement tool involved content validity test using Content Validity Index (CVI), construct validity test through factor analysis and reliability test. Results: Thirty-five items were selected by content validity test, which CVI was 0.08 or higher. Through the construct validity test, 32 items in 7 factors were derived. And Cronbach's alpha was 0.951. Finally, public benefits measurement tool is composed of 32 items in 7 factors which are comprehensiveness of health care services, market complement, emergency care, cost, governance, quality improvement, and government control. Conclusion: Though we developed the measurement tool of public benefits in RCC, it would be utilized to measure the public benefits of various health agencies.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Statistics Korea. Statistics of deaths by cause in 2011 [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea; 2012 [July 25, 2013]. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr.
  2. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Operational guidelines for regional cardiocerebrovascular center in 2012. Seoul: Ministry of Health and Welfare; 2012.
  3. Yoon SJ, Kim EJ, Kim HJ, Oh IH, Suh HY. A study on measuring the burden of cardio-cerebrovascular disease in Korea. Cheongwon: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010.
  4. Mun JJ, Lee SE, Park YS, Hwang JN, Kim SG. Publicness evaluation criteria and index development of health care organization. Cheongwon: Korea Health Industry Development Institute; 2009.
  5. Kim YI. The issues and direction of health care reform in Korea. Proceedings of Debate Forum of Korea Health and Medical worker's Union; 2002 May 13; Seoul, Korea. Seoul: Korea Health and Medical worker's Union; 2002.
  6. Lynn MR. Determination and Quantification of Content Validity. Nurs Res 1986;35(6):382-385.
  7. Waltz CW, Bausell RB. Nursing research: design, statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia (PA): EA Davis; 1981.
  8. Kown SH. Development and validation of the hospice palliative care performance scale. J Korean Acad Nurs 2011:41(3):374-381. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2011.41.3.374
  9. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res 2003;25(5):508-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945903252998
  10. Lee KS. Strengthening publicness of private hospitals. Seoul: Ministry of Health and Welfare; 2007.
  11. Bozeman B. Dimensions of Publicness : An approach to public organization theory. In New directions in public administration. eds. B.Bozeman and J. Straussman. Belmont, CA: Crooks/Cole, 1984.
  12. Jung YS, Huh MH. An analysis of publicness of health care services in public hospital. J Korean Public Admin 1999:33(4):355-370.
  13. Andrews R, Boyne GA, Walker RM. Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: a review of the evidence. J Public Admin Res Theory 2011;21(Suppl 3):i301-i319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur026
  14. Rainey HG, Backoff RW, Levine CH. Comparing public and private organizations. Public Admin Rev 1976:36(2):233-244. https://doi.org/10.2307/975145
  15. Bozeman B, Bretschneider S. The "publicness puzzle" in organization theory: a test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. J Public Admin Res Theory 1994;4(2);197-224.
  16. Giusti D, Criel B, De Bethune X. Viewpoint: public versus private health care delivery: beyond the slogans. Health Policy Plan 1997;12(3):192-198.
  17. Shin YJ. What is publicness for us? Proceedings of Monthly Debate Forum of Academy of Health Policy and Theory; 2001 Dec; Seoul, Korea. Seoul: Academy of Health Policy and Theory; 2001.
  18. Yun YS, Sim YO, Son HI. The effect of new management system on the publicness in the hospital. Korean J Labor Stud 2010;16(2):273-460. https://doi.org/10.17005/kals.2010.16.2.273
  19. Walker RM, Bozeman B. Publicness and organizational performance. J Public Admin Res Theory 2011:21(Suppl 3):i279-i281. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur025
  20. Anderson S. Public, private, neither, both? Publicness theory and the analysis of healthcare organisations. Soc Sci Med 2012;74(3):313-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.021
  21. Goldstein SM, Naor M. Linking publicness to operations management practices: a study of quality management practices in hospitals. J Oper Manag 2005:23(2):209-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.07.007
  22. Bozeman B, Moulton S. Integrative publicness: a framework for public management strategy and performance. J Public Admin Res Theory 2011;21(Suppl 3):i363-i380. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur031